As soon as the international sanctions on Iran were lifted on January 16, the US Secretary of State John F Kerry said, "Today marks the start of a safer world."  The question on everyone's mind is: how safe is John Kerry's "safer world"? There is no denying that the understanding of international security and world safety can be ensured if both sides - Iran and the West - are certain that their foreign policy objectives of the nuclear deal are achieved. 

President Obama claimed that the nuclear treaty between Iran and P5+1 could be successful with support from 99 percent of the world's people. The stalemate of a decade and a half on the question of Iran's alleged nuclear ambition, which strained their relationship, could finally be brought to an end after the signing of the comprehensive plan of action, which was signed on July 14 last year. Many people believe that the world will probably now be safer than before and the prospect for world peace will, therefore, be brighter. Yet there are people who are opposed to this notion. For example, the nuclear treaty has been considered by Israel as a "historic blunder." The Republican party of the US has, for that reason, objected to the treaty. It is worthwhile now to have an objective analysis of the implications of the treaty for international peace and security.

The debate started between Iran and the West in August 2002, after some expelled Iranian citizens leaked alleged secret plans of Iran's nuclear programmes. The interaction between hardliners of both Iran and the West had worsened the situation. However, the policy shift under President Obama and President Hassan Rouhani brought to the fore the possibility of Iran–West rapprochement. The series of discussions and debates finally paved the way for a joint comprehensive plan of action. Prior to that treaty, Iran claimed that the western and UN embargo against them should be lifted, and Iran's right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy must be recognised. They added that the nuclear issue needed to be resolved through peaceful discussions on the basis of equal rights, respect and dignity. 

The analysis of the nuclear treaty reveals that Iran's conditions have been fulfilled in the treaty. First, according to the provision of the treaty, the economic and military sanctions against Iran would be removed. Second, Iranian assets and resources that were frozen so far would be freed. Third, Iran would be allowed to gear up research activities for the enriched centrifuges during the first ten years after the signing of the comprehensive plan. Above all, Iran would not be forced or bound to enforce the UN observation on its military sites without challenging it. The most remarkable success of Iran's nuclear diplomacy is Iran's ability to bargain with the West for a long thirteen years. Moreover, Iran can prove that it cannot be ignored by the West, and that they are equal to the West in terms of international image, dignity and rights. 

The lifting of sanctions means Iran's immediate access to more than $50 billion in long-frozen assets and the freedom to sell its oil and purchase goods in the international market, apart from the opportunity to, in President Rouhani's words, "make an economic leap and development."  

The most significant diplomatic gain of the West, on the other hand, has been to stop Iran from building its nuclear arsenals. The UN observer team has also been allowed to visit the military sites of Iran. Moreover, the violation of any provision of the treaty by Iran would reinstate the economic and military sanctions on Iran in 65 days. The missile embargo and the conventional weapons embargo would continue for eight and five years respectively, in this case.   

The inimical relationships between Iran and the West hampered their regional and global interests on a scale that cannot be compensated in any way. From the West's perspective, it can be said that their strained relationships with Iran have largely obstructed their strategic, economic and geo-political interests in the Middle East in particular, and international relations in general. The West also needed a scope and opportunity to rebuild their declining international image, a result of blind Western support to Israel. This normalisation of relationships could be a step in resolving regional conflicts and crises in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, Libya and Yemen. More importantly, Iran's cooperation towards military and strategic operations against the IS jihadists and the newly emerged Al-Qaida networks emerged as the most important programme at hand. The stage has also been set for the Iran-West detente to prevent a prospective war between Iran and Israel to bring stabily in the regional politics of Middle East. 

The diplomatic isolation contributed by the hardline President Mahmood Ahmadinijad's nuclear policy led to the election of the more moderate President Hassan Rouhani, thus promoting the end of the prolonged era of Iran-West estrangements that curbed the economy of Iran from flourishing. The primacy of universal freedom and openness of an emerging regional political and economic giant like Iran was also emphasised by all concerned sections. Finally, Iranians grew interested in being integrated with the international community in order to keep pace with the tide of globalisation, elevate their ailing economy and to play the required global role of Iran in the fast changing realities of the 21st century international relations. 

In the absence of Iran and West's rapprochment, hardliners of the country could mount domestic pressures for the nuclearisation of Iran, which might have been supported by the general public. Thus, a nuclear Iran could have emerged within a very short time as a big threat to world peace and security. It can thus be said that a prospective and drastic war between the West and Iran could bring about a dangerous tragedy for global security. 

 Obiviously, the thorny path towards the implementation of the Iran-West nuclear treaty may throw a big challenge to international  peace and security. For instance, many people, including the blind supporters of President Obama, agree that the implementation challenges derived from the nuclear treaty may not prevent Iran from possessing and developing nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future. In its evaluation, The New York Times stated that the implementation of the treaty might be possible in mor times than predicted. Some foreign policy experts of the US, including former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and economist George P. Shultz criticised the treaty as structurally flawed and ineffective in ending the Iran-US hostility. 

However, the grand responsibility of executing the Iran-US nuclear treaty lies on the shoulder of the West, the US and the UN. Run by the realist political theory, if the West starts to ignore and undermine Iran, show their political muscle and express explicit hostility, Iran may also not feel bound by that treaty. The responsibility of the West now is to preserve the 'win-win' situation of the nuclear treaty. Transparency, integrity, sincerity and accountability from both sides towards the obligations of the treaty will be the sole guarantee for the success of the nuclear understanding between the West and Iran. Obviously, the new sanctions imposed on Iran on its missiles, only a day after the lifting of the embargo on Iran's nuclear programme, can lead to a major setback to this long awaited success. 

According to Washington Post, The Independent, Reuters and AFP, when President Rouhani was asked about Iran's response to any new US sanctions or violations of the nuclear treaty, he replied that any action will be met by a reaction, and if the US imposes any measure, it would receive an "appropriate response." Now is the time for the international community to bring forth a peaceful, diplomatic solution to the issue of sanctions of missile programmes.  

The writer is a Professor at the Department of International Relations, University of Dhaka, and currently Dean of the School of Business and Social Sciences, Sylhet International University.
Email: mramin68@yahoo.com